Re: Gmc. w-/g-, j-/g-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> http://runeberg.org/display.pl?mode=facsimile&work=svetym&page=0300
>
> gyckla, "conjure, perform tricks"
> 1600's. alt. -ö- = Da. gøgle,
> from MLG gôkelen, LG gökeln (-ü) =
> OHG goukelôn (Germ. gaukeln) etc, cf.
> OHG gougolôn plus MHG gogelen; poss.
> rel. to MHG giege(l), (court) jester,
> and in that case native Germanic;
> in any case prob., as also gyckel
> (MLG gokel) gycklare (mlty. gökeler),
> influenced by
> MLat. jocularis, jocularius, musician, conjurer
> (see jonglera).

Any chance that OHG goukelôn, MLG gôkelen could be related to MLG gôk "simpleton", ON gaukr "cuckoo", Engl gowk "cuckoo; simpleton, fool", OE géac "cuckoo", OHG gouh "cuckoo, bastard, fool", G gauch "cuckoo, simpleton, gawk", which OED relates to *gau- as in ON geyja "to bark, to blaspheme", WFris geije "to cry out", ME yeie "to cry out, shout, call out, utter in a loud voice"? Possible semantic development would be "fool>jester>entertainer>conjurer" and then the verbs could develop from the latter with the influence of Lat. joculator?

>
> cf. Du. goochelen, goochelaar id.
>
> and Du. gokken "gamble".
>

Don't know the origin of these, but wouldn't more words than just this group alternate between *j and *g if there really was an alternation between *j and *g in initial position? As you've said, I already explained OE géol, ME yo:l, etc. and also OHG jesan/gesan, OHG jehan = OS gehan, as having only *j originally, no *g.

> And why not Engl. juggle, Fr. jongler.
>

Both taken to be from Lat. joculari "to jest" by the OED.

> Now if we really, really want a FU connection, how about
>
>
> UEW
>
> 'juGe- (juke-) 'trinken' FU
>
> Finn. juo- 'trinken, saufen';
> est. joo-, juu- |
>
> lapp.
> N jukkâ- -g- 'drink',
> L juhka- 'id.; saufen',
> K (468) T jukki-,
> Kld. jukke-,
> Not. juhke-,
> A jukke- 'trinken; (Tabak) rauchen' |
>
> tscher.
> KB jüä-,
> U d´üa- 'trinken',
> B jüja-,
> KB B jükte-,
> U d´ükte- 'zu trinken geben' |
>
> wotj.
> S ju-, K d´u- 'trinken; feiern', (Wichm.)
> G jui.- 'trinken',
> S juktal-, l´uktal- 'tränken, zu trinken geben' |
>
> syrj.
> S P PO ju- 'trinken',
> S juktal- 'tränken, zu trinken geben' |
>
> ? ostj. (OL 11)
> Vj. jän´t´- 'Schnaps trinken',
> DN jån´t´-,
> O jes´- 'trinken' |
>
> wog. (WV 135)
> TJ äj- KU äj-, P ä:j- ~ äj-, So. aj- 'trinken' |
>
> ung. iv- (i-, isz-) 'trinken, saufen'.
>
>
> Das ostj. Wort kann nur dann hierher gehören, wenn n´t´, s´
> Ableitungssuffix ist.
>
> Der palatale Vokal der ersten Silbe im Tscher., Ostj. und Wog. kann
> durch den Einfluß der palatalen Konsonantenumgebung erklärt werden.
>
> Im Wog. ist *j geschwunden.'
>
>
> and/or
>
>
> 'jukta- 'sprechen, erzählen' FW, ? FU
>
> Finn.
> juttele- 'sprechen, erzählen',
> juttu 'Gespräch, Erzählung, Märchen'
> (> lapp. K (497) T juhte- 'erzählen');
> est. jutt (Gen. jutu) 'Rede, Gespräch, Unterhaltung, Plauderei;
> Geschichte, Erzählung, Fabel, Märchen',
> ütle- 'sagen, aussprechen, behaupten, ausdrücken' |
>
> mord.
> E M jofta-,
> E jovta- 'sagen, melden, erzählen, schildern; bestimmen; erklären,
> deuten',
> E M jofks, E jovks 'Rätsel, Märchen' |
>
> ? ung.
> játsz- 'spielen, eine Rolle spielen, darstellen',
> játék 'Spiel; Spielzeug'.
>
> Im Ung. kann eine Bedeutungsentwicklung 'erzählen' ->
> '(Rolle) spielen, darstellen' ->
> 'spielen' angenommen werden; vgl.
> lat. iocus 'Scherz, Schäkerei, Zeitvertrieb, Spiel' ~
> ahd. jehan, gehan 'sagen, sprechen, bekennen' <
> ieur. *iek- 'sprechen';
> tschuw. kala 'sprechen, sagen' ~ 'spielen (ein Instrument)'.
>
> Ostj. (OL 48)
> V jan,ka-,
> DN O jant- und
> wog. (WV 69)
> TJ jank-,
> KU janG-,
> P jann-,
> So. jonG- 'spielen' (...) können wegen des inlautenden n keine
> Entsprechungen von ung. játsz- sein.'
>
> Note the nice example with the same semantic spread, although UEW
> doesn't claim relatedness like I do.
>
> With both entries UEW must take conditional exception to or exclude
> similar words because of what appears to be an n-infix; since I see
> these as substrate loans in both FU and IE, probably from the
> -ar-/-ur- language, identical to Schrijver's language of geminates
> which allows it, I can accept them as belonging to the entry.
>

I for one can believe you on this one, but my opinion is not worth anything because I know effectively nothing about FU (except that people often use it as an abbreviation for an offensive expression) or the -ar-/-ur- language.

Andrew